 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] In re Marriage of Catlin12/30/2003
. Kirstin Catlin appeals a judgment of divorce. Kirstin argues that the circuit court erred in several respects when ordering child support, maintenance, custody, and physical placement. Regarding child support, Kirstin contends, among other arguments, that the circuit court erred by failing to comply with statutory requirements governing both presumptive child support calculations and deviations from the presumptive child support award. Regarding both child support and maintenance, Kirstin asserts the circuit court erred by using John's "half-time" income and by finding that Kirstin is able to work full time. Finally, Kirstin argues that the circuit court applied an erroneous legal standard and misused its discretion when it awarded custody and physical placement in a manner that precluded her from moving back to her home state of Maine with the children. We reject most of Kirstin's arguments, but remand because we conclude that the circuit court failed to properly calculate the presumptive child support award, and this error, combined with other factors, persuades us that the court should reconsider both its child support and maintenance awards.
Background
. Kirstin and John Catlin were married on June 6, 1992. They have three children, born February 3, 1994, April 1, 1996, and April 18, 1998. A memorandum decision granting the divorce and detailing the terms was filed on July 19, 2001. Both Kirstin and John requested modifications, and some changes were made in a final judgment of divorce which, apart from the changes, incorporated the terms of the memorandum decision. The final judgment was filed on March 20, 2002.
. In its memorandum decision, the court ordered John to pay $236 per week in child support. In the final judgment, John's child support obligation was changed to $272 per week. This award constituted a downward deviation from the presumptive percentage standards. The court ordered John to pay Kirstin maintenance in the amount of $200 per week for five months. The court awarded the parties joint legal custody of all three children. Regarding physical placement, the court awarded 63% of the overnights to Kirstin and 37% to John. This placement schedule effectively precluded Kirstin from moving back to her home state of Maine.
Discussion
A. Child Support
. Kirstin contends that the circuit court erred when awarding child support. Specifically, she argues the circuit court:
1) erred when it ascribed to John income based on his "half-time" status;
2) erred when it found that Kirstin was capable of working full time;
3) failed to correctly determine John's presumptive child support obligation under Wis. Admin. Code §§ DWD 40.03 and 40.04; and
4) failed to provide a reasonable explanation for deviating from the child support standard.
In addition, Kirstin contends that the record does not support the downward deviation ordered by the circuit court.
. The determination of child support is entrusted to the circuit court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless an erroneous exercise of discretion can be shown. LeMere v. LeMere, 2003 WI 67, , 262 Wis. 2d 426, 663 N.W.2d 789. We will sustain a discretionary act if we find that the circuit court "(1) examined the relevant facts, (2) applied a proper standard of law, and (3) using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach." State v. Gudenschwager, 191 Wis. 2d 431, 440, 529 N.W.2d 225 (1995). The trial court's findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2) (2001-02). Under this standard, findings of fact
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|